2024 (2) TMI 1137 - AT - Customs

Illegally export goods from India to Nepal - unauthorized route without any valid documents using Bicycles - confiscation good - redemption fine and penalty imposed - HELD THAT - It is only a presumption by the Revenue that the goods were attempted to be exported outside India without proper documentation and without proper channel and no corroborative evidence has been produced on record. Further, the statement of the appellant was recorded during the course of investigation wherein the appellant claimed the ownership of the goods and the ownership of the bicycles recovered during investigation. As no corroborative evidence has brought on record by the Revenue to allege that there is an attempt for illegal export of goods. Thus, confiscation of the impugned goods is not sustainable. Accordingly, no redemption fine can be imposed and no penalty can be imposed. Hnece, set aside the impugned order in toto and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are illegal export of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, confiscation of goods, and the presumption without corroborative evidence.

Illegal Export of Goods:
The case involved an appeal against an order where it was alleged that the appellant attempted to export goods illegally from India to Nepal through an unauthorized route without valid documents using bicycles as the mode of transport. The goods were detained by the officers of SSB and subsequently handed over to the Land Customs Station. The proceedings were initiated under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Development & Regulation Act, 1992. The goods were provisionally released to the appellants and later adjudicated to be liable for confiscation, with a redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Presumption without Corroborative Evidence:
During adjudication, the appellant argued that the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed were not sustainable as there was only a presumption by the Revenue without any corroborative evidence that the goods were attempted to be exported without proper documentation or channel. The appellant claimed ownership of the goods and bicycles recovered during the investigation, and no evidence was produced by the Revenue to prove an illegal export attempt. The Tribunal found that the confiscation of the goods was not sustainable due to lack of evidence, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the confiscation of the goods was not sustainable as there was no evidence to support the claim of illegal export. Therefore, no redemption fine or penalty could be imposed. The impugned order was set aside in its entirety, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.